Decision

It was confirmed that
Councillor Cunnington had signed the Code of Conduct on becoming a
Councillor in 2023, and had also participated in Code of Conduct
training, which was mandated for all members of the Council. The
subsequent attendance at Code of Conduct training was after the
complaints had been submitted against him.
 
The Investigating Officer (IO)
introduced their report and supporting evidence bundle and
highlighted the complaint made against Councillor Cunnington by
Councillor Milnes. The complaint was submitted in relation to
Councillor Cunnington’s comment underneath a Facebook post by
Councillor Green on 1 May 2024. The post contained a link to a
Lincsonline news article about former
Councillor Patsy Ellis’ resignation from the Council.
Councillor Green headed the post: “Former portfolio holder
for bins at SKDC, Cllr Patsy Ellis, has left the Cabinet and the
Green Party. Did she jump before she was binned?”
Councillor Cunnington commented underneath, “Vile
disrespectful insensitive scum”.
 
Councillor Milnes alleged that
the comment showed a clear lack of respect, breaching the Code of
Conduct and the Nolan Principles (the Seven Principles of Public
Life). The IO explained that the Nolan Principles underpin the Code
of Conduct but did not form part of it. Allegations must relate to
behaviours under the Code and the IO confirmed that they were able
to investigate any behaviours which they felt were relevant. They
investigated against the behaviours of disrespect and disrepute,
under parts 1, and 5 of the Code of Conduct.
 
The IO outlined the principles
of freedom of expression and the relevant legislation; in this case
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR). Taken
together, the right to freedom of expression could be subjected to
restrictions provided they were lawful and necessary in a
democratic society. Freedom of speech could be curtailed if it was
lawful to do so to protect the rights and freedoms of others; there
were several pieces of UK caselaw which supported this.
 
In the view of the IO the
complaint constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct under
‘respect’ which did not attract the protection of
Article 10 of the ECHR. This was due to their view that it fell
within the realms of what could be considered to represent personal
abuse. They did not feel that there was anything within the comment
subject to the complaint that brought the Council or the Subject
Councillor into disrepute.
 
As part of the investigation
the IO identified a further breach of the Councillor Code of
Conduct. This was due to Councillor Cunnington failing to comply
with the investigation itself. Various emails were sent to
Councillor Cunnington by the IO and the Monitoring Officer during
the investigation, but no response had been received. The only
response by Councillor Cunnington to the Monitoring Officer was
when he was first informed that a complaint had been
received.
 
The IO’s report and
evidence bundle included statements submitted by Councillors Penny
Milnes and Ben Green.
 
Councillor Milnes provided a
written statement to the Panel which supported the investigation
and conclusions carried out by Wilkin Chapman Solicitors. She was
satisfied that there had been a ‘detailed, balanced and
exhaustive examination of the case’.
 
The Independent Person praised
the comprehensive report and findings of the IO and fully endorsed
its conclusions.
 
The Panel adjourned to
deliberate and reach a conclusion at 2:14pm and reconvened at
2:44pm.
 
Conclusion
 
The Panel accepted the report
in its entirety and agreed that the comment was personal and
insulting and concurred with the finding that Councillor Cunnington
had failed to co-operate with the investigation.
 
The also concurred that the
comment did not bring the Council or the subject Councillor into
disrepute.
 
The Hearing Review Panel
therefore AGREED that the following elements of the
Councillor Code of Conduct were breached by Councillor
Cunnington:
 

1.        
Respect

 
As a
Councillor:
 
1.1       I
treat other Councillors and members of the public with
respect
 

8.        
Complying with the Code of Conduct
 
As a
Councillor:
 
8.2       I
cooperate with any Code of Conduct investigation and/or
determination
 
The Panel, having consulted
with the Independent Person, AGREED that the following
sanctions be applied:
 

That Councillor
Steven Cunnington be required to attend training on the appropriate
use of social media whilst acting in an official capacity as a
Councillor.

That Councillor
Steven Cunnington be required to attend further training on the
Councillor Code of Conduct.

That Councillor
Steven Cunnington be required to attend the above training sessions
within six months.

That a Censure Notice
be placed on Councillor Steven Cunnington’s profile on the
Council’s website regarding his failure to co-operate with a
Councillor Code of Conduct investigation, for a period of twelve
months. 

 
In addition, the Panel made the
following recommendation:
 
a.   
That all Councillors be recommended to consider use
of the blocking facility on social media platforms.
 
Right of Appeal
 
Subject to judicial review,
there was no right of appeal against the decision of the Hearing
Review Panel.
 
The Hearing closed at
2:50pm.